Devine v. USA

Filing 20

ORDER OF DISMISSAL ADOPTING REPORT AND RECOMMENDATIONS for 17 Report and Recommendations. ORDERED Movant's motion to vacate, set aside, or correct sentence (#1) is DENIED and the case DISMISSED with prejudice. All motions not previously ruled on are DENIED. Signed by District Judge Marcia A. Crone on 3/12/2018. (daj, )

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

LACIE DEVINE, #21303-078
verses
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA

EASTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS

§
§
§
§
§

CIVIL ACTION NO. 4:15CV075
CRIMINAL ACTION NO. 4:13CR154(1)

ORDER OF DISMISSAL
The above-entitled and numbered civil action was referred to United States Magistrate
Judge Kimberly C. Priest Johnson.

The Magistrate Judge issued a Report and Recommendation

(#17), which contains proposed findings of fact and recommendations for the disposition of
Movant’s § 2255 motion (#1).

Movant filed timely objections.

In her objections, Movant

argues the Report and Recommendation failed to cite the evidence, which was “clear and
con[c]i[s]e and was easily confirmed if the government had reviewed it.”

See #19 at 1.

Movant

alleges the evidence “backs up all the claims by the Movant and was gathered by an outside
investigator.”

Id.

Predominately, Movant appears to take issue with the sufficiency of the

evidence against her, arguing the Government failed to prove her guilt beyond a reasonable doubt,
and the amount of loss attributed to Movant at sentencing.

See generally id. at 3-5.

After a de novo review of the record and considering the Report and Recommendation and
the Movant’s objections, the Court concludes that the findings and conclusions of the Magistrate
Judge are correct, and adopts the same as the findings and conclusions of the Court.

In her

objections, Movant states she, “is not second guessing counsel’s performance yet, she is providing
new evidence that if present during her pre-trial would have shown her case in a different light and
that Movant was incorrectly sentenced.” #19 at 2.

Movant fails to show the evidence presented

was not available during these proceedings, and her statement contradicts her allegations against

her trial counsel.

Moreover, the Government has no obligation to prove a defendant’s guilt

beyond a reasonable doubt after a defendant enters a guilty plea, of which Movant was
admonished, and Movant stated she understood this admonishment during her change of plea
hearing.

See Blackledge v. Allison, 431 U.S. 63, 73 (1977) (stating that solemn declarations in

open court carry a strong presumption of veracity); CR Dkt. #55 at 8-10.

Finally, despite her

conclusory allegations, Movant fails to show how the record she presents proves her claims.
It is accordingly ORDERED Movant’s motion to vacate, set aside, or correct sentence (#1)
is DENIED and the case DISMISSED with prejudice. All motions not previously ruled on are
DENIED.
.
SIGNED at Beaumont, Texas, this 7th day of September, 2004.

SIGNED at Beaumont, Texas, this 12th day of March, 2018.

________________________________________
MARCIA A. CRONE
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE